Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| >Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| >| No problem with gcc 4.0. No problem with my no.po file.
| > | | The problem is that the no_NO locale has been phased out,
| >| and replaced by nb_NO instead, for resons political.
| >
| >It is possible to dig up any references on this issue?
| >
| >
|
| Norwegian document stating the three language codes
| to be used in Norway (nb_NO, nn_NO and se_NO), and
| instructions to avoid no_NO and replace it with nb_NO everywhere.
| Also, references to various RFCs:
| http://i18n.skolelinux.no/localekoder.txt
|
| Announcement about the introduction of nb_NO and
| deprecation of no_NO in libc, Nov. 03, 2003:
| http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2003-11/msg00031.html
|
| Dec. 2003, redhat supports both no_NO and nb_NO in the
| expected transition period:
| http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/2/x86_64/glibc-common-2.3.3-27.x86_64.html
Ok, great thanks.
| So, what do I do?
| * Both nb.po and no.po - identical?
| * Both nb.po and no.po, with no.po including a warning about
| deprecated language? (The warning can be included in the
| translation string for "Welcome to LyX!" in no.po)
| * Rename no.po to nb.po and loose no_NO support, as distros supports
| nb anyway? Saves some work.
Let's opt for the last one. Someone needs to push forward, why not us.
| How about the help document no_Intro.lyx ?
| Rename to nb_Intro.lyx, or copy it?
rename. (imho)
| Keeping support for no_NO is some extra work, although it mostly
| consists of keeping copies.
which get out of date.
What we could have as a help is to discover that no_NO is used and
just use nb_NO instead in that case.
--
Lgb
